16mm Black/White Options

[Felix Finken]

Hello guys, 

 

I've got a project in planning where I'm shooting 16mm black and white and since it's my first time, I'm wondering what my options are. I already shot a couple of projects on 16mm, but all in color...

The project will be done with a small crew, outside and not much lighting gear. So the environment won't be fully controllable. 

 

Here are the options I have in mind:

A) Double X 

I'm wondering if that stock is too contrasty and dark for the project. Furthermore I'm concerned about the dynamic range of the stock, because I heard you only got 1-2 stops in the highlights and that's probably not enough for the environment I'm shooting in. 

B) Tri-X 

Never heard of this stock before. Does anyone has experience on this? But I already heard that's it more expensive to develop and scan.

C) Vison 3 200T --> Grading it B/W

I'm used to the stock and it has more dynamic range. Further it's not that contrast and dark as Double X or what do you guys think on that? 

 

Right now I'm not quite sure, but I'm thinking that shooting 200T and grading it B/W will be the best option for this project or what is your opinion on that? And what is your opinion on Double X & Tri-X in general? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gautam Valluri]

44 minutes ago, Felix Finken said:

A) Double X 

I'm wondering if that stock is too contrasty and dark for the project. Furthermore I'm concerned about the dynamic range of the stock, because I heard you only got 1-2 stops in the highlights and that's probably not enough for the environment I'm shooting in. 

Double-X in 16mm has a very specific look. It's sharp and grainy, and when you shoot a blank white wall you get the trademark "ants" type grain. But this look is associated with some beloved indie and experimental films in cinema history, so choosing this means (atleast for me), a very deliberate choice of a look.

 

46 minutes ago, Felix Finken said:

B) Tri-X 

Never heard of this stock before. Does anyone has experience on this? But I already heard that's it more expensive to develop and scan.

Tri-X is a reversal stock. After development, you won't get a negative image but a positive one. I personally love the look of Tri-X, the grain is tight and the details are excellent but you have to nail the exposure to a high degree of accuracy. Reversal film is not as forgiving as negative film with over and under exposure. Depending upon how much film you're shooting, you should speak to your closest lab and establish that they can develop the quantity you require. Since you're from Munich, I can recommend Andec Cinegrell in Berlin, as I'm certain they develop Tri-X in any quantity.

 

48 minutes ago, Felix Finken said:

C) Vison 3 200T --> Grading it B/W

I'm used to the stock and it has more dynamic range. Further it's not that contrast and dark as Double X or what do you guys think on that? 

Or even the 500T, if you want even more room for exposure. A lot of film productions go this route as shooting on a vision3 colour negative stock is the safest way to go about things currently. Personally though, once a colour negative scan is graded to B&W in post, it just looks like desaturated colour negative to me. The whole "look" of the black and white film image comes from its lack of lattitude, its crushed blacks and more visible grain.

I recommend you check out the finnish film The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Maki. The entire film was shot on Tri-X and looks gorgeous. In interviews the cinematographer of the film said that they even used some 500T in some low-light situations but he push-processed the negative and bleach bypassed it in development to get a contrastier, granier image that when graded to B&W in post looks closer to the Tri-X image.

[Sebastian Bock]

More Options:

You can also shoot on Orwo UN54, Foma R100 or Fomapan 100

When I see your questions, I recommend to do a little more research than just asking here. If you never heard about Tri-X, you could visit Kodak‘s website to read about it. Also the search function here is a good resource. 
 

The advantage of shooting b/w is, that you have many ways to influence the look of your film - by the usage of specific developers for example. Saying, Double X is generally contrasty and dark is nonsense, since it is a negative stock and the brightness and contrast depends on exposure, development, scanning or print processing. 
The latitude might be an argument, but come on: generations of filmmakers were shooting beautiful films on that stock - so maybe it is also good enough for you… 😉
 

 

 

 

[Gautam Valluri]

On 12/5/2024 at 7:00 PM, Sebastian Bock said:

Saying, Double X is generally contrasty and dark is nonsense, since it is a negative stock and the brightness and contrast depends on exposure, development, scanning or print processing. 
The latitude might be an argument, but come on: generations of filmmakers were shooting beautiful films on that stock - so maybe it is also good enough for you…

This is why I prefer to use the word "Sharp" instead of "contrasty" to describe the quality of Double-X.

My personal view (after having used the stock extensively over the years) is that I much prefer Double-X on 35mm as opposed to 16mm. I dislike the "ants" like grain when shooting a white wall, that is less present on a larger 35mm negative.

It is indeed a great stock but something one has to choose intentionally for its look. Also, one has to test it extensively to figure out what kind of exposure they want to achieve the image they want. Unlike the modern vision 3 stocks, where you could just film without a lot of tests before hand and it'll get you a decent image.

The OP has mentioned that he does not have a lot of lighting gear and will probably be filming outside in natural light with a small crew. I would recommend him to go with Vision3 stocks just to be safe.

[Felix Finken]

Thanks guys for your opinions on my questions!

[Phillip Mosness]

There's a technique that was discussed here a few years back that sounds interesting. 

The idea is to rate Tri-X at 100asa and process it as a negative and pull 1 stop.

The concept was suggested by the DP of The Lighthouse Jarin Blaschke as an alternative to shooting 5222 for that film. I don't recall why they didn't go with it, because it sounds like it was quite a nice result. Maybe they couldn't get enough Tri-X in 35mm?

With a little looking there are some examples to view.